Alabama Legislature Passes Major Pro-Life Bill, Banning Almost All Abortions.....

The Alabama legislature on Tuesday passed a pro-life bill that would ban almost all abortions, the only exception would be if a mother’s life is put in danger. Doctors who perform an abortion could face a Class A felony punishable by life or 10 to 99 years in prison. If a doctor attempts to perform an abortion he or she could face a Class C felony, punishable by one to 10 years in prison, the Montgomery Advertiser reported.

The bill is part of a multi-state effort to pass pro-life legislation with the hope that it will be challenged and eventually end up at the Supreme Court. According to the Associated Press, the bill's supporters didn't want a rape or incest exception added to the bill because it would lessen the likelihood of being challenged at the Supreme Court.

The bill passed the House of Representatives 74-3 and the Senate 25-6, LifeNews reported.....snip~

The Alabama legislature on Tuesday passed a pro-life bill that would ban almost all abortions, the only exception would be if a mother’s life is put in danger. Doctors who perform an abortion could face a Class A felony punishable by life or 10 to 99 years in prison. If a doctor attempts to perform an abortion he or she could face a Class C felony, punishable by one to 10 years in prison, the Montgomery Advertiser reported.

The bill is part of a multi-state effort to pass pro-life legislation with the hope that it will be challenged and eventually end up at the Supreme Court. According to the Associated Press, the bill's supporters didn't want a rape or incest exception added to the bill because it would lessen the likelihood of being challenged at the Supreme Court.

The bill passed the House of Representatives 74-3 and the Senate 25-6, LifeNews reported.....snip~

The governor is now saying she will sign the bill. Once she found out that this was set up so the left challenges it at the SCOTUS. She was all in.

Did they also vote to expand their welfare programs at the same time? Because one = the other. That's why I don't get people who are both anti-abortion and anti-social programs. It makes no sense. I would disagree with someone who stood against abortion on principal and was willing to pay more taxes to end abortion. But I would respect them.

Did they also vote to expand their welfare programs at the same time? Because one = the other. That's why I don't get people who are both anti-abortion and anti-social programs. It makes no sense. I would disagree with someone who stood against abortion on principal and was willing to pay more taxes to end abortion. But I would respect them.

This bill and all the heartbeat bills are designed to get it into SCOTUS. Then Roe vs Wade will have to be looked at on the merits of Law, and just how $#@!ty the Left wrote it up.

Expect the leftness to really have some conniption fits once they know Roe vs Wade is dangling by a thread.

Don't only Practice your Art, but force your way into its Secrets, For it and Knowledge can Raise men to the Divine!!!!!Ludwig Van Beethoven ~

If I were the democrats in Alabama, I wouldn't challenge the law, instead let it stand. With most all abortions gone, there will be more babies dumped into the state's care and that means more tax dollars to care for the newborns until they are 18 years of age. Every year the number of children under the care of the state will increase as will the tax dollars needed and the legislators will realize they made a huge error in judgement in passing this legislation.

Currently plotting the overthrow of the world; unfortunately I have no idea how to do it..Independent and proud of it!If you allow people to use you as a piece of carpet, they will. -- Eugene V. Debs

Should this (apparently soon-to-be) law be the one that goes before the Supreme Court, it might be of interest to the taxpaying citizens of Alabama to know exactly how much it cost them to get it there. Perhaps many of them might then want to take it out of those legislators' hides come next election time, as it will have proved to be a complete flush of their money.

If there were currently nine "conservative" judges on the high court, this law or any similar law would still be overturned on Constitutional grounds. Roe v. Wade was decided on the firmest of legal foundations, as anyone with a modicum of legal training and who has actually taken the time to read the full decision can attest; all the partisan rhetoric and legerdemain in the world cannot undo nor obscure that simple fact.

"It is a foolish man who believes that he possesses all of the answers unless he is absolutely certain that he has heard all of the questions." - me

Should this (apparently soon-to-be) law be the one that goes before the Supreme Court, it might be of interest to the taxpaying citizens of Alabama to know exactly how much it cost them to get it there. Perhaps many of them might then want to take it out of those legislators' hides come next election time, as it will have proved to be a complete flush of their money.

If there were currently nine "conservative" judges on the high court, this law or any similar law would still be overturned on Constitutional grounds. Roe v. Wade was decided on the firmest of legal foundations, as anyone with a modicum of legal training and who has actually taken the time to read the full decision can attest; all the partisan rhetoric and legerdemain in the world cannot undo nor obscure that simple fact.

Looks like the ACLU will be getting another big check just like the last time these dumbasses tried this.....

“Conscientiously believing that the proper condition of the negro is slavery, or a complete subjection to the white man, and entertaining the belief that the day is not distant when the old Union will be restored with slavery nationally declared to be the proper condition of all of African descent, and in view of the future harmony and progress of all the States of America, I have been induced to issue this address, so that there may be no misunderstanding in the future”

Should this (apparently soon-to-be) law be the one that goes before the Supreme Court, it might be of interest to the taxpaying citizens of Alabama to know exactly how much it cost them to get it there. Perhaps many of them might then want to take it out of those legislators' hides come next election time, as it will have proved to be a complete flush of their money.

If there were currently nine "conservative" judges on the high court, this law or any similar law would still be overturned on Constitutional grounds. Roe v. Wade was decided on the firmest of legal foundations, as anyone with a modicum of legal training and who has actually taken the time to read the full decision can attest; all the partisan rhetoric and legerdemain in the world cannot undo nor obscure that simple fact.

What costs do you refer to?

Firmest of legal foundations? Do you mean the miraculous discovery of penumbral rights?

Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

Should this (apparently soon-to-be) law be the one that goes before the Supreme Court, it might be of interest to the taxpaying citizens of Alabama to know exactly how much it cost them to get it there. Perhaps many of them might then want to take it out of those legislators' hides come next election time, as it will have proved to be a complete flush of their money.

If there were currently nine "conservative" judges on the high court, this law or any similar law would still be overturned on Constitutional grounds. Roe v. Wade was decided on the firmest of legal foundations, as anyone with a modicum of legal training and who has actually taken the time to read the full decision can attest; all the partisan rhetoric and legerdemain in the world cannot undo nor obscure that simple fact.

Roe is judicially wrought social legislation pretending to the status of constitutional law. It is more adventurous than Miranda and Griswold, other watchwords of judicial activism from its era. It is as much a highhanded attempt to impose a settlement on a hotly contested political question as the abhorrent Dred Scott decision denying the rights of blacks. It is, in short, a travesty that a constitutionalist Supreme Court should excise from its body of work with all due haste.

Roe has been commonly misunderstood since it was handed down in 1973, in part because its supporters have been so determined to obscure its radicalism. It is usually thought that Roe only prohibits bans on abortion in the first trimester, when it effectively forbids them at any time, imposing a pro-abortion regime as sweeping as anywhere in the advanced world.
The confusion arises from the scheme set out in the majority opinion, written by the late Justice Harry Blackmun. In the first trimester, the Court declared, the right to abortion was absolute. In the second, states could regulate it to protect the mother’s health. In the third, states could restrict abortion in theory, but had to allow exceptions to protect the life or health of the mother, defined capaciously in the accompanying case of Doe v. Bolton to include “emotional, psychological, familial” considerations, as well as “the woman’s age.”

Over the years, the decision’s laughable constitutional inadequacy has been widely recognized. Shortly after it came down, Harvard Law School professor John Hart Ely, a supporter of legalized abortion, wrote that “Roe is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”

“Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding,” a former Blackmun clerk, Edward Lazarus, has written. “And in the almost 30 years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.”

That’s because none is possible. The Court in Roe purported to find the constitutional right to abortion in the 14th Amendment, which says that no state can “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

This passage has no obvious or even subtle connection to legalized abortion (in fact, abortion laws were being tightened in the 19th century when the amendment passed). No matter. According to Blackmun, abortion is so central to liberty that no restriction on it can stand constitutional scrutiny.

He is at pains to deny that unborn children are “persons in the whole sense.” As evidence, he points to clauses in the Constitution about persons that don’t have “pre-natal application,” e.g., the requirement that persons must be 35 or older to run for president. This is too stupid for words. Just because clauses like this refer to adults doesn’t mean that minors, or unborn children, don’t have rights.....snip~